Posted on 09/04/2014 1:08:21 PM PDT by Hugin
And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.
This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.
The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Did you say the same about Obama once?
This is a major shift by Paul in a positive direction. He should be applauded.
Of course he isn’t.
Prepare for the flying monkeys to continue claiming he is though. It’s all they’ve got to live for...
No it’s not. Rand isn’t Ron and never has been.
We are borrowing money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Syria, or anywhere else a new military adventure is taken up.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. “And to involve our troops in further conflicts that hold no vital U.S. interests is wrong.”
This is from his senate.gov page. It’s there in black and white. He somewhat makes sense about the borrowing, but he says point blank that to involve troops where there in no vital US interest is wrong.
Paul is anything which can get him votes, hell he pretends to be a conservative and he should be running on the liberaltarian ticket.
Libertarianism doesn’t necessarily mean weak foreign policy. Ultimately you can’t have liberty at home without a secure nation. I want the maximum amount of liberty at home, but with a government that’s vigorously defends our interest abroad. What I don’t want is getting involved where we have no national interest. I also agree with Paul here that nation building is moronic and doomed to failure over there.
Thomas Jefferson is a big hero to libertarians, he sent the navy to take out the sultan of Tripoli over attacks on American ships. And without a Declaration of War BTW.
Only Mitt Romney has more positions on any topic than “Bravely Rand-away” Paul.
Thanks for being specific. It seems to me he was talking about going into Syria and attacking Assad then, which actually would have helped ISIS. So I’m not sure that deciding ISIS is now a threat to our security is a flip-flop.
When Lyndon Johnson wanted to send hundreds of thousands of troops to Vietnam, he said we couldn’t afford to be “isolationists.”
“Isolationism” is just a slur that simply means, “you don’t support the war I want the U.S. to engage in.”
I’ll be you, Servant, don’t support invading Cuba, or China, or Vietnam, or North Korea. Does that make you an isolationist? Only in the view of somebody who supports those invasions.
It’s a meaningless term, except as a term of abuse - and Rand Paul is an “isolationist,” only in the minds of people who want to wage wars that he doesn’t support.
Ultimately you can’t have liberty at home without a secure nation.
You can’t have liberty at home if you’re always, ALWAYS at war. War is the most expensive enterprise government can engage in. It runs up deficits, debt, inflation, and grows the size of government more than anything else.
War is sometimes necessary, but if we’re always at war, kiss your freedoms - and your pocketbook - goodbye.
Rand, please link us to your public calls to send troops to oppose ISIS/ISIL.
Man, I hope he hasn’t called for that.
You want US troops back into Iraq - and into Syria? How many? At what cost? Since we have exactly NO money of our own to spend - we’re 17 trillion dollars in debt — how much of your military operation will be paid for by borrowing from China, and how much by printing more dollars? Those are the only two options, friend.
“Conservative” war-hawks are like domestic liberals: They’re all for spending more money on their pet projects, and don’t want to talk about the price tag.
True. I’m most afraid of people who advocate war without a realistic strategy for winning and getting out. Paul is absolutely right about that. Bush’s “nation building” strategy was based on the erroneous notion that the desire to live in a free and democratic society with a central government is universal. It isn’t. We could have stayed in Iraq 25 years and the same thing would have happened when we left.
I am not saying that I agree with his plan but you have mischaracterized it.
From what I have read, the border patrol and an inspector general would produce a report determining if it was secure and then congress would vote on whether they agreed. If the boreder patrol and the IG didn't think the border was secure they wouldn't certify that it was. If a congressman didn't feel the border was secure due to the fact that there was no fence he could vote that he didn't agree with the report. Then this same report and same congressional vote would be required EVERY YEAR for several years as the existing illegals were processed.
Also, I couldn't find the 2 million number that you used.
Again, I don't think his idea is a good one and I would not support it but it isn't as bad as Gov. Pence's plan or Paul Ryan's plan or the Gang of Eight's plan. In fact, I don't know of a national politician who has laid out a detailed plan that is more conservative than Paul's. If you have seen one please enlighten me. In Paul's plan illegals would need to get in line with every other person on the globe to apply for citizenship. They would just be given permission to live here while they were waiting.
Do you have any evidence that Paul is against a fence or border security?
Cheney: Rand Paul ‘Basically an Isolationist’ (this was in June, but it's a big issue now because it's "polling" badly with ISIS and so Rand must disassemble & scramble)
Of course.
Thank you. Not sure I agree with you, but you make a very good point.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda....
The fact is, Rand Paul is not President, and the Current Occupant of the Oval Orifice is totally without any appetite or gumption for taking the stern measures that are now called for.
Only when something big, that dwarfs even the carnage and disruption that ensued with the attacks of September 11, 2001, should happen within the boundaries of the territory once known as “the United States of America”, shall there be sufficient outcry and pressure to take the right kind of action. It may, in fact, be a vast overreaction, but that is only fitting at this point.
When Patton crossed the Rhine River in Germany the first time, in March 1945, his objective was first Berlin, then Moscow. This initiative by Patton so alarmed the SHAEF High Command they had to call him back, so the British and Free French could keep up, and to give the Russians a “fair chance” to participate in the defeat of Germany.
Patton’s plan was to rearm the surrendered armies of the German Wehrmacht, give them supplies, and have them march right back into the Soviet Union.
We are on the cusp of having to decide whether to take such action as Patton proposed. Had he gone to Moscow, half a century of history would have been irrevocably changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.